Richard Butler

Richard Butler

DPReview Administrator
Lives in United Kingdom Seattle, United Kingdom
Joined on Nov 7, 2007

Comments

Total: 4450, showing: 1301 – 1320
« First‹ Previous6465666768Next ›Last »
On article The mighty PEN: Hands-on with Olympus PEN-F (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edac2: I knew about the 2x focal length factor of micro 4/3 lenses (17mm = 34mm), but I didn't know that applied to the f-stop as well. Is it true that an f/1.8 lens is actually f/3.6 as the article states?

It's not true that an F1.8 lens is *actually* F3.6.

However, it is true that an F1.8 lens mounted on a Four Thirds sensor behaves in way that is directly comparable to an F3.6 lens on a full frame sensor (in terms of per-image light, and hence shot noise, and depth-of-field). This is a purely comparative way of looking at things, it's not something you need to care about when you shoot.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 18:49 UTC
On article The mighty PEN: Hands-on with Olympus PEN-F (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

RingoMan: Well, the 34 mm equivalent is correct. The f stops are never part of this as an f stop is based on focal length devided by lens opening. Not sure why anyone would write this silly mistake.

Equivalent apertures are just as correct as equivalent focal lengths. A 17mm lens doesn't *become* a 34mm when placed in front of a Four Thirds sensor, it *behaves like* a 34mm lens on a full frame camera.

Likewise that 17mm F1.8 lens *behaves like* a 34mm F3.6 on full frame. The framing, depth-of-field and light per total image for the same shutter speed (and hence, shot noise) is the same.

The only difference is that the way we think of exposure is light per unit area, not light per image, so you don't use equivalent apertures for exposure. It's a useful way of understanding how all the different formats compare to one another.

It's something we've covered [in some detail](http://bit.ly/equivap).

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 18:45 UTC
In reply to:

WoodWorks: It appears that the panoramic Boundary Warp feature is also not available in the standalone LR 6.4 version, only with CC. At least it doesn't show up for me. Can anyone else confirm? I see no mention of this omission here or anywhere on Adobe support forum.

I think Adobe said that LR 6 would only gain extra camera support, not extra features, until there's a whole version number update.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 18:28 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2499 comments in total)
In reply to:

Atazoth: First, I am confused. Why do some people keep saying you shouldn’t compare a mirrorless camera to a DSLR? A camera is a camera and if the price rang is similar then you should compare them. If the mirrorless is not as good, don’t buy it. Size shouldn’t matter that much unless maybe you are a small woman. The most important thing is picture quality, second is usability.

It is suspicious to me that this article compares a 1700.00 camera to a 750.00 camera. Xpro 1 vs D5500...What’s up with that? The comparison should be to the D750, its closest in price.

The article is only comparing the *sensor* in the D5500, since it's one of the best APS-C chips we've seen. The two cameras are very different, just as the price difference would suggest.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 18:23 UTC
In reply to:

HarrieD7000: I can't understand what the meaning is of a teardown. I don't mind what is inside, just the end result is what counts. A good lens is to make photos, not to open it.

Roger tears them down because he needs to know how easy they'll be to repair and calibrate. We thought some of the things he found were pretty interesting.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 18:05 UTC
On article Sony Alpha 7R II Review (2168 comments in total)
In reply to:

MiLei: You(Dpreview) don't explain the word BSI sensor, like in "42MP Full Frame BSI CMOS sensor".
I think it means that light comes from under the thinned silicon and not where it normally comes, where metal is.

It also want help much if you explain it here. This comment will probably be comment #5656565... some day. No one will see this.

I saw it.

You're right, it essentially means that you build up your sensor then shave the substrate off the back and use that (the back side in conventional terms) as the front of the sensor, meaning that light doesn't have to pass through the circuitry to get to the photodiode itself.

It's easy for us to forget that, although we've written about it many times over the years, it's not necessarily common knowledge. I'll see if I can sneak a bit more detail into the article.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 23:29 UTC
In reply to:

blink667: In terms of IQ, will this be better than the X-Pro 1?

The studio work [we've published](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/retro-through-and-through-fujifilm-x-pro2-first-impressions-review/6) suggests so.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 19:47 UTC
In reply to:

Magnus Wedberg: The linear drive system is much older than Anti-Shake/Steady Shot: this is an old Minolta patent, from the 90s I think. I discovered the patent myself and posted about it on the now defunct MML (Minolta Mailing List) back then. Nice to see it used, even if one might suspect some earlier lenses having this system too.

That's interesting. Thanks!

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 22:38 UTC
In reply to:

Magnus Wedberg: The linear drive system is much older than Anti-Shake/Steady Shot: this is an old Minolta patent, from the 90s I think. I discovered the patent myself and posted about it on the now defunct MML (Minolta Mailing List) back then. Nice to see it used, even if one might suspect some earlier lenses having this system too.

I was just speaking to someone from Sony and they said the first application was in Minolta's image stabilization system.

The first use for autofocus (which requires lower precision than IS) was the Sony RX10, apparently.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 20:22 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2499 comments in total)
In reply to:

StephaneB: What RAW converter was used? ACR does not support the X-Pro2 yet.

We used a near-final beta of Adobe Camera Raw.

In circumstances that we use betas, we check the files against the results when the public version becomes available and update our files if necessary.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 23:39 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2499 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gesture: 1. What happened to GearShop?

2. You have a large staff. Why not issue reviews "at a whole."

Reviews don't scale like that: they're not twice as fast if two people work on them, they're certainly not four times faster if four do.

Also, there's been a lot of speculation about the X-Pro2's dynamic range performance. With access to a production spec camera and an Adobe Camera Raw build, we were in a position to address that question. Would you rather we withheld that answer until we've tested autofocus and movie capabilities?

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 22:31 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2499 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ari Aikomus: Which ACR version will be able to open Fuji X-pro2 RAW files??

You're right, it should be mentioned (it's usually listed in the parameters for the Raw files in the test scene, and is being added now).

However, Adobe doesn't provide us with software builds until they're fairly far advanced (and usually identical to the public version that's launched soon afterwards). I can only think of one instance of a noticeable change in image quality between the build we were offered and the final public version from the last eight years I've been here.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 22:15 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2499 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: I love Fujis, but with the high prices and weird feature absences (no RGB histogram?!?!? FFS) plus customer manipulation (plastic skin textures on the 2nd gen high ISO jegs, denied by Fuji), I would jump ship but for one thing.

There's no getting around the fabulous portrait OOC jpegs that are a combo of fuji skin tones, autoDR, and wonderful jpeg engine. No need for RAW (in fact I can't get as good in RAW as I can in fuji jpeg).

Even Lightroom's Fuji modes don't come anywhere near the OOC jpegs. I did try, ladies and gents, since the plastic textures on the 2nd gens were a deal-breaker.

Thanks goodness this camera doesn't have the plastic texture issue because I was stuck. But it's time for fuji to get their finger out of their collective butts and give us an RGB histogram. I need to go lower on the ISOs to get a decent 4K image but I would then be troubled by blow-outs, particularly in the red channel. ISO 400 does not reach 4K except when shot in portrait orientation.

Sadly, I don't think we've ever encountered a camera that offers Raw histograms.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 19:42 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: If size is not an issue, you can still get Nikon D7100 for $500. It is a very capable weather sealed camera with huge selection of the lenses from Nikon or 3nd party, and build quality is much better than all cameras listed in Richard's article.

The article is simply using one of our roundups to discuss a general case. It's not *about* those models.

But yes, out-of-production cameras are cheaper than the latest models.

However, to the point of the article, there are smaller options, options with Wi-Fi, options that make it easier to shoot better video with. Options with greater usable dynamic range. Depending on individual needs, the D7100 could be a great or a terrible recommendation.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 19:21 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2499 comments in total)
In reply to:

pait: Page unviewable.

Where are you encountering that?

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 19:01 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2499 comments in total)
In reply to:

ot73: love the review, but i never understood how can you compare different brands, which use different lenses...

BTW, which lens did u use on the Fuji?

thanks!

veritalens - potentially, yes (though there isn't a huge difference between the 50mm lenses we use most often, once you stop them down a little).

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 18:47 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2499 comments in total)
In reply to:

ot73: love the review, but i never understood how can you compare different brands, which use different lenses...

BTW, which lens did u use on the Fuji?

thanks!

The lenses used are listed with every sample. Hover your mouse over the info [ i ] button to the lower right of each sample pane.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 18:42 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2499 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aroart: I think fuji makes great cameras but there asking price for this camera is a bit high.. The XT1 price was lower at launch... I hope they can launch it with lense discounts like olympus does...One thing that's great about fuji they make awesome lenses and only a few suck....

List price (in the US, at least,) is the same as for the X-Pro1 at launch.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 16:28 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2499 comments in total)
In reply to:

vincent0923: it seems like Fujifilm is no longer "faking" the iso rating.
I downloaded the iso 25600 low light jpegs of both xpro2 and A7R2, with same looking image, iso 25600, aperture 5.6, the shutter speeds are the same at 1/5000s for both camera.

We l're nor adjusting the lighting for the camera. JPEGs are shot based on image brightness (as per the sections of the ISO standard that camera makers use), Raws are shot using fixed settings to allow side-by-side comparison of noise.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 16:04 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2499 comments in total)
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Whoa what happened these images are seriously horrible. Surely this can't be the true output from this camera can it ? My little walk around Nikon D 3300 with cheap kit lens destroys this Fuji and I only paid $499 for it. Something is wrong here I just can't image it really being that bad.

JPEGs in our test scene are shot based on the camera's interpretation of ISO (or a photographer trying to shoot an image of a particular brightness). The shutter speed and aperture used are stated in the info button next to each image.

Raws are shot based on standardised aperture and shutter speed so that each camera is getting the same amount of light. That was you can compare noise.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 16:00 UTC
Total: 4450, showing: 1301 – 1320
« First‹ Previous6465666768Next ›Last »